FLeetwood Mac without Stevie - Page 2

chiliD · #16 05-29-2007, 01:53 PM

a) As long as it was new material by the band named "Fleetwood Mac", hell, yes I would buy it. I've bought every other official release of theirs. The only way I wouldn't is if either Neil Diamond or Barbra Streisand joined the band.

b) And, to keep my streak going of never missing a Fleetwood Mac tour since 1974, of COURSE I would go see their show...at least, one...maybe MORE, since Stevie WASN'T there and I wouldn't have to deal with the people who were there ONLY for Stevie...the people who WERE there would be those who are full-on Fleetwood Mac fans.

danax6 · #17 05-29-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiliD

b) And, to keep my streak going of never missing a Fleetwood Mac tour since 1974, of COURSE I would go see their show...at least, one...maybe MORE, since Stevie WASN'T there and I wouldn't have to deal with the people who were there ONLY for Stevie...the people who WERE there would be those who are full-on Fleetwood Mac fans.

So, as a rule, Stevie Nicks fans can't be full on Fleetwood Mac fans? I'm just trying to follow your line of reasoning here...

chiliD · #18 05-29-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

So, as a rule, Stevie Nicks fans can't be full on Fleetwood Mac fans? I'm just trying to follow your line of reasoning here...

No, that's not what I said. I already qualified it..."...wouldn't have to deal with the people who were there ONLY for Stevie...". If I went to see a Fleetwood Mac show that didn't have Stevie, then those Stevie Nicks fans who were there would MOST LIKELY also fit into the "Fleetwood Mac fan" demographic. Or, they didn't get the memo that Stevie wasn't in the band anymore.

After seeing Fleetwood Mac WITH Stevie around 50 times, it has appeared to me, more often than not, those who are there ONLY to see Stevie Nicks have little or no interest in what the band does when she's not singing one of her songs or if she doesn't have a major focal role in the background vocals. Just my own observation. If there was a scientific poll taken during those shows, I probably would be off on my calculations, but if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, logic prevails that it's a duck.

danax6 · #19 05-29-2007, 02:34 PM

^Okay, gotcha.

Though I do think that most people that are a fan of Stevie Nicks are really not uninterested in anything that Fleetwood Mac does. (And you can't base your opinions on the fact that Time wasn't successful, that's a whole other cup of tea). I think it has more to do with what happens on stage as opposed to it just 'not being Stevie'. I couldn't care less about Mick's drum solos either.

The one thing that you'd have going on for you is that you have to deal with less people dressed up as Stevie Nicks.

(disclaimer: 'you' is meant in general)

TheWILDheart · #20 05-29-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly

Everyone else was bland in comparison??

It was Lindsey's guitar playing that interested Mick, not Stevie's "fresh, new personality". They are all better with each other and none of them are as good alone. Not even the Goddess, Stevie. How many times has she said she prefers to be a part of the band, Fleetwood Mac, than do her solo thing??

JESUS CHRIST I'd have Stevie solo over Fleetwood Mac ANYDAY!

and to all who have said I'm an idiot and laughed and etc etc...what can I say, I'm a complete chiffon head. Being a Stevie fan should be a RELIGION! ALL HAIL QUEEN STEVIE! lol. Seriously though Stevie is just.....omg.....just....ahhhh i can't even thing of a word....she's...FABULOUS! And in my top five most fabulous things in life.

danax6 · #21 05-29-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

JESUS CHRIST I'd have Stevie solo over Fleetwood Mac ANYDAY!

I don't think Jesus Christ is really interested in that.

TheWILDheart · #22 05-29-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danax6

And you can't base your opinions on the fact that Time wasn't successful, that's a whole other cup of tea

Time could've been really good. It had Billy and Christine who I am very fond of on BTM. The fact that they were messed around by the record company and that the tour came BEFORE the album for some reason and that Christine really didn't have a clue what was going on at all on this album. It just seems sort of...forced...rather than something that was coming naturally to the band as every album before it did. Also, you can just tell that Chris really didn't want to be there at all. So for me, Time sucks because of those reasons and was unsuccessful because it had no promotion. Not because Stevie wasn't on it. I mean, look at Fleetwood Mac until 1975. They had a number 1 with albatross and a **** load of moderately successful albums and an incredibly loyal fan base. They could've had that again with Time if they didn't balls it all up.

Sarah · #23 05-29-2007, 03:32 PM

I'd buy it if Lindsey was on it.

TheWILDheart · #24 05-29-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah

I'd buy it if Lindsey was on it.

Yeh I think I would if Lindsey was on it. Lindsey and Christine always made a cheerful combination whereas when Stevie and Lindsey were together it was all very dramatic and tense and they wanted to kill each other and the rivalry and everything else whereas with Chris and Lindsey it was always about the music rather than each other.

chiliD · #25 05-29-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWILDheart

Time could've been really good. It had Billy and Christine who I am very fond of on BTM. The fact that they were messed around by the record company and that the tour came BEFORE the album for some reason and that Christine really didn't have a clue what was going on at all on this album. It just seems sort of...forced...rather than something that was coming naturally to the band as every album before it did. Also, you can just tell that Chris really didn't want to be there at all. So for me, Time sucks because of those reasons and was unsuccessful because it had no promotion. Not because Stevie wasn't on it. I mean, look at Fleetwood Mac until 1975. They had a number 1 with albatross and a **** load of moderately successful albums and an incredibly loyal fan base. They could've had that again with Time if they didn't balls it all up.

They HAD an album all ready to release DURING the tour (titled Another Link In The Chain), WITHOUT Christine. It was the record company that demanded Christine be on the album (due to some "small print" clause in their contract); which delayed the album over a year. So, yeah, Christine's contributions WERE "forced". Kind of like the last minute having to turn a Lindsey Buckingham solo album into a Fleetwood Mac album (which they've done twice now). I think the original album would've been a whole lot better, had a better "feel" and better "flow" than what Time became. It didn't help that a person who Christine had had a long-time feud with (Dave Mason) was now a two-year long member of Fleetwood Mac.

It could be compared with the hypothetical situation on Say You Will if Stevie had said that she'd do the album, but didn't want Lindsey playing guitar on her songs...that she wanted Waddy to play on her songs. Exactly what seemed to have happened with Christine's songs on Time...she didn't want Dave Mason anywhere NEAR her songs...hence Michael Thompson being the guitarist on Christine's tunes.

What screwed up the '94-95 edition of Fleetwood Mac was that they still forced Rumours down our throats in concert. If they'd made the set full of the current studio material they'd been working on, with just a hint of "the past" thrown in (as they'd done two decades earlier), I think they'd have built a new identity, instead of the perception that Bekka was "replacing" both Stevie & Christine.

Hawkeye · #26 05-29-2007, 04:16 PM

I personally WISH Stevie would've left the band after the Mirage tour in 1982. She was pretty much useless in the band after Mirage. Her Tango/BTM and Paper Doll songs all SUCK. And she was horrible on both those tours. She really should've quit after 1982. She could've still came back in 1997, hell The Dance could've been even bigger after her talking a longer break.

TheWILDheart · #27 05-29-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I personally WISH Stevie would've left the band after the Mirage tour in 1982. She was pretty much useless in the band after Mirage. Her Tango/BTM and Paper Doll songs all SUCK. And she was horrible on both those tours. She really should've quit after 1982. She could've still came back in 1997, hell The Dance could've been even bigger after her talking a longer break.

Excuse me????

songs of Stevie's that rule post-82:

Seven Wonders
Welcome To The Room...Sara
No Questions Asked
Love Is Dangerous
Affairs of The Heart
Freedom
The Second Time
Paper Doll

Granted, Tango was not a particularly good time for Stevie song wise. I mean WISYA sucks so badly. It's actually the only Stevie-Mac song I don't like. But she made up for it with gems like Freedom and Paper Doll.

Hawkeye · #28 05-29-2007, 04:28 PM

I don't like any of those songs you listed, except No Questions Asked.

TheWILDheart · #29 05-29-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I don't like any of those songs you listed, except No Questions Asked.

REALLY!? Wow I LOVE Freedom, Second Time, Seven Wonders and Paper Doll. The rest I can live without but I like them.

aleuzzi · #30 05-29-2007, 04:41 PM

Yeah, I'd buy it...unless it was basically Dave Mason fronting the band

Seriously, I think LB is at the point now where he knows he can make more $ with FM than he ever could alone (a slow but obvious realization?) so possibly he is more inclined to be on a new FM record than Stevie. That said, I think Sevie would do another record--with or wthout Chris. She's a tour hound and the lure of good $ wouldn't hurt.

I would love all three of them o be back for a studio record. Period. Take or leave a tour. Just get them to make some damn good music, which thankfully they're all still doing in various configurations.